How NATO-ISAF and the Afghans should defend our supply routes

[heavenlyboy34]

The first thing you need is an enemy. A country or a political structure.

You can not fight a war against a nebulous concept. (terrorism)

btw, the US or even Briton parking warships off shore and saber rattling,,is the very definition of terrorism.

Wow, we are in agreement on this!

[Danke]

Good work Mr. Dow. Now let's get going on a Chip-In!

[amy31416]

LOL, who the fuck is Peter Dow?

Good question.

A quick google image search brings up this fellow who is located in Scotland.

Fellas--hold on to your ladies, he's a hot and spicy number! And his personal ad is quite tempting: http://scot.tk/lookingforawoman.htm#top



ETA: "How NATO-ISAF and the Afghans should defend our supply routes." Our routes? Pffft...

[Peter Dow]

To the OP, why would you post this headline...

U.S. Tax Dollars Fueling Afghan Insurgency

and then act like the problem is that the "supply routes aren't protected enough"?

I am struggling to identify the nature of your confusion.

If a highwayman demands money to let you pass, and you have to pay to pass, in what way is that route protected? That is the situation now. No protection, at all. Tax dollars going to pay highwaymen.

A route is protected if instead of a highwayman's demands all you see is a police officer waving you through with the highwayman in handcuffs or shot dead. Then the route is protected. That is the kind of protection I am trying to organise.

Are you confused by the phrase a "protection racket"? I do not mean "protection" in the mafia sense but in the police "Protect and serve" sense.

The Afghan people have never been conquered for long. And it was within my lifetime that they faced down the then most militarily advanced and ruthless empire around. (The Soviet Union). You don't think the Soviets thought about supply routes?

We do not wish to conquer the Afghan people but to liberate them from their oppressors, the Taliban. It is better for them, it is safer for us.

The Soviet secret police, the KGB were ruthless and the Soviet police state was a bad thing, 100% so.

Whereas, the Soviet communists were not all ruthless; they were not all bad. They had some good intentions though it did not work out as they planned. Thank goodness for Michael Gorbachev and Condoleezza Rice ending the cold war.

The communists would have given the Afghans a better standard of life than they ended up with after the Soviets were driven out. Therefore the USA supplying stinger missiles etc to the Mujahideen was not without cost to the Afghans long term.

What was really needed was a joint United Nations approach so that the Soviets and the US and the international community could together sort out Afghanistan instead of fighting the cold war by proxy which did not do real good long term.

[pcosmar]

I am struggling to identify the nature of your confusion.

I'll bet you are.
The overall position of most on this board is Non-intervention. A position reached by applied logic.

What was really needed was a joint United Nations approach so that the Soviets and the US and the international community could together sort out Afghanistan instead of fighting the cold war by proxy which did not do real good long term.

Wrong.
What we need is to leave them alone,,to bring our troops home. And to stay out of stupid situations in the future.

[amy31416]

We do not wish to conquer the Afghan people but to liberate them from their oppressors, the Taliban. It is better for them, it is safer for us.

[james1844]

Don't people understand, Afghanistan doesn't want our troops over there to begin with. Is it so hard to understand, no matter how much money the government gives to Afghanistan to protect supply lines, it is instead going to be used to fight against our troops?

Actually, thats wrong. Many afghans prefer NATO/ISAF to the Taliban.

[amy31416]

Bump.

[Dr.3D]

Actually, thats wrong. Many afghans prefer NATO/ISAF to the Taliban.

Or so they say.

"Give us money and we will help you fight." I've seen this ploy work time and time again, and it seems the U.S. never learns. The U.S. has been giving a lot of money to Pakistan lately, and I'm sure much of it is going to fund those the U.S. is fighting against.

[james1844]

I am writing this from my desk in Kabul. I hope this gives me some credibility, probably not.

There are larger moral issues involved in the situation in Afghanistan. While I have great deal of respect for the idea of non-interventionism, my concern is that if we apply this doctrine uncritically here in Afghanistan, it will lead to a pullout.

A premature pullout would lead to civil war. The word sounds antiseptic and sterile on the internet, but it means a lot if you are sitting here in Afghanistan. Just so I want to try to put this in terms people in the states will understand - I think people in the states don't really understand what it means - but it means something like Sherman's march to the sea for most of Afghanstan. We are talking cities ruined, agricultural areas laid waste and people displaced, their property stolen and houses and land ruined. A lot of people, good people, hardworking ethical people will be killed or forced into refugee camps.

My apologies if it sounds dramatic, I just want people on the board to understand what is really on the line here.

Should we leave? I don't know. I just don't know.